New Census Estimates for the States

[jimrtex]

Here's what I get

July 2004:
Arizona +1
Florida +1
Iowa -1
New York -1
Ohio -1
Pennsylvania -1
Texas +1
Utah +1

By next year, Nevada and maybe a 2nd Texas gain, and a Massachusetts and possibly a Missouri loss.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Compared to the projections based on 2003 estimates, Alabama holds on to its seat, and California gains 1 rather than 2.

[jimrtex]

The apportionment data will be higher than the block-level state data due to overseas population. Yet the overseas population must be considered to get the apportionment estimates for 2010. A next level of precision would be to base the estimated rate off the in-state population only, then apply the rate to the total base including overseas population.

The percentage of the (census-counted) overseas population varies among the states from 0.42% to 0.10% of the apportionment population.  If you use the apportionment population for the 2000 base of the projection, but use the 2004 census estimate for resident population, you are in essence estimatiing that the overseas population had moved away from each state between 2000 and 2004, and would project that about 150% more would move away between 2004 and 2010.

For example, Hawaii had a April 2000 resident population of 1,211,537; a April 2000 apportionment population of 1,216,642, and a July 2004 estimated resident population of 1,262,840.

If you use the resident population, the annual growth rate in the 4.25 years between April 2000 and July 2004 is 0.981%.  Compounded over 10 years results in a projected resident population of 1,335,725.  If we assume that the non-resident population remains constant, this would produce an apportionment population of 1,340,830.

If you base the projection on the April 2000 apportionment population and the July 2004 estimated resident population, you get an annual growth rate of 0.881%, and a 2010 projected population of 1,328,148, which is a difference of 0.955%.

In general, southern states have a larger share of their apportionment population overseas, while northeastern and midwestern states have a smaller share.  The overseas population includes US military and federal civilian employees and dependents living with them.  It does not include other non-resident US citizens.

One of the test censuses in 2004 tested the feasiblity of enumerating all overseas Americans.  The test countries were France, Mexico, and Kuwait.

[jimrtex]

Anyone notice that the large states get screwed by the allocations for House districts. If the priority value is n, you need only 0 people for 1 seat, sqrt(2)n=1.41n for 2 seats, but you need (k+0.5)n for the k+1st seat for a large state?

This views representation as some sort of collective right of a State, rather than the right of groups of people to have a representative of their own.  There are 3 sets of divisors that might be considered for the n+1th seat:

(a) ((n)+(n+1))/2, that is 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, etc.

(b) sqrt((n)*(n+1)), that is 1.414, 2.449, 3.464, 4.472

(c) (2*(n)*(n+1))/((n)+(n+1)), that is 1.333, 2.400, 3.429, 4.444

Method (a) minimizes the variation in the number of representatives per person.  Method (c) minimizes the variation in the number of persons per representative.   Method (b), the one used, is a compromise of the two.

Note that under the divisor method, the raw divisors are somewhat misleading.  For example, the divisors for a 10th representative are: (a) 9.500; (b) 9.487; (c) 9.474, and the divisors for a 9th representative are (a) 8.500; (b) 8.485; (c) 8.471.   Yet the ratio between the divisors under all 3 methods is 1.118.  That is, if two states were competing for a 10th and 9th representative, then the larger state would have to have 1.118 times as many people to gain the 10th seat before the smaller kept its 9th.

Method (c) is consistent with the goals of intrastate apportionment (equality of persons per district) and applies them to interstate apportionment.

[jimrtex]

It turns out that the effect of the overseas population on projecting the next apportionment is samll, and grows smaller as one gets farther from the census year.

If you use the overseas population in the base for the projection, but not for the point at which projection begins, then the rate of increase will be deflated.  Projecting that rate forward will remove additional population.  States with a relatively high overseas population will not only have that population counted, they will incur an additional deficit in proportion to the relative size of their overseas population.

Imagine a state with 1,000,000 residents with a zero rate of growth.  If it has 1,000 overseas residents in 2000, then using 1,001,000 for 2000, 1,000,000 in 2005 will result in a projection of 999,000 for 2010.  Then compare what would happen if there had been 2,000 overseas residents.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This may be a reasonable model, especially if the overseas population is largely related to the military.  If the overseas military population declines (for example force reductions in Germany and Korea), then the soldiers and their dependents may well return to their home states.  If the number of overseas military is increased then they likely will be drawn from the same areas they currently are.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The share of the overseas population in the apportionment population is small (0.1% to 0.4%).    I believe you may be too focused on the final priority list.  What would be the rate of growth needed for Florida to gain the 435th seat under the two projection methods (assuming that theother 49 states maintain their current estimated growth rate?